The chaos that hit the Church with the post-Vatican II liturgical and doctrinal upheaval must have been very hard for the Ellises of the Church to take. Even though I'm an adult convert to the faith, in my pre-Catholic days I experienced/endured something similar in the sect in which I was born and raised, when a new generation of leaders systematically dismantled everything about the sect that we thought made us special and unique. It was quite painful to see one's religion, one's entire worldview, shredded to bits before one's very eyes. It caused a massive hemorrhaging of members from which that sect will probably never recover. The positive thing about that revolution and upheaval, though, is that most of those things we thought made us special and unique were in fact damnable heresies, so it was necessary and right to abandon those errors -- whereas the post-Vatican II experience in the Church has seen a surge of heresy and a suppression and abandonment of truth and beauty.
Mr. Potter,
It will take several generations to absorb the full impact and significance of Vatican II. Sometimes I find myself wondering, nonetheless, whether we have "several generations" to spare.
I have yet to understand whether the changes in the Church post-Vatican II were a result of Vatican II per se, or the result of societal changes at large ( rise of youth culture, loss of authority, sexual revolution, increase in materialism, development of the Pill, etc.)
I suspect it was more the latter but I honestly don't know.
Definitely the latter. A great deal of good came out of Vatican II ... unfortunately, it requires a lot of work to find it, and there are a great many people actively working to conceal it to advance personal agendas. Had Ellis, for example, been harshly critical of the pope, I don't believe any bishop would have insisted on her firing ... it wouldn't have been "pastoral."
In a way, I think that us post VII generations of Catholics are blessed: we have to fight for what many in the pre VII generations had handed to them, and so we may have a faith that is more desperate and passionate - a fighting faith.
Perhaps that is why many of those of the "liberal" persuasion see us as "judgmental", "intolerant", and "hatful". We have seen the damage and ruin that their brand of "Christianity" has done to so many lives and institutions and we're ready of fight about it.
Good point, Mr. Hearn. I'm saddened by the fact, however, that so many cradle Catholics -- especially young people -- are so far from fighting for their faith as to seem nearly oblivious to the significance of their own birthright tradition. I teach at a nominally Lutheran liberal arts college with well over a hundred nominally Catholic students, of which perhaps no more than a handful frequent the sacraments.
"I teach at a nominally Lutheran liberal arts college with well over a hundred nominally Catholic students, of which perhaps no more than a handful frequent the sacraments."
That is a problem that is discussed in Steve Kellmeyer's book "Design to Fail: Catholic Ecucation in America."
http://www.aquinasandmore.com/in...gory/1274/sp/0/
By the way, just so there's no confusion, my above comments had to do with the post-Vatican II experiences and travails of the Church, not with Vatican II itself. I agree that there is much that is good and very necessary that came out of Vatican II -- but as we all know, after the Council many very pernicious things swept over the Church.
If the above link for "Designed to Fail" doesn't work, there's another one at Kellmeyer's website here:
http://bridegroompress.com/catal...&
products_id=60
"Designed to Fail"
Sounds like some appliances I've had!
I think many of us deceive ourselves about youth’s supposed rediscovery of the faith. I don’t see it, frankly. EWTN flogs this particular horse rather hard, with their clubhousey “Life on the Rock”, a show which fills a need, I suppose, but does so in a rather labored way – Mickey Mouse had his own club, too. I really wonder if Fr Stan Fortuna, an orthodox and clearly well-intentioned priest, with his jive talk and JPII rap videos, accomplishes anything beyond the further trivialization of his faith – the perception of the asininity of faith. There is something rather pathetic about him, the last surviving graduate of the Malcolm Boyd school of hipster ministry. Even the vaunted “World Youth Days” seem more about youthfully aberrant behavior than genuine faith. I would like to be wrong about all this, but I have no confidence that the newest generations are turning the tide against our depraved modernist culture. Like so many others, including so many of the V2 movers and shakers themselves, they “engage” the culture only to be swallowed by it. Some, eventually, find their way back. The rest are simply digested, eliminated, and forgotten.
I recently visted Holy Cross College and Boston College and was surprised to learn that daily Mass is packed out (in one of them, BC I think). The reason Catholic youth don't practice the sacraments is often that they are so badly administered.
I see complaints about the management of the Synod, curial bullying etc. But the real problem seems to have been the quality of its participants. They had a dialogue session with the Pope and he made a great effort to listen, but their theological level was so low that he had to interrupt with a short lecture on eucharistic theology -- the basics!
I also see that Abbe Pierre, the most popular man in France, has come out against priestly celibacy and in favor of gay couples, and expressed doubts about Mary's virginity. Another heretic for Dr Blosser's indignation!
How do we know he's the most popular man in France? Did he enter and win a beauty pageant or something? Did they count the signatures in his high school yearbook?
Jesus said, "Woe to you when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." (Luke 6:26) So Jesus invites us to consider the probability that Abbe Pierre is a false prophet and has betrayed the Lord his God.
The popularity contest in question is a national poll taken annually. Mother Teresa also figures prominently in it -- another false prophet?
If you neocaths succeed, all the most lively figures in the RCC will be tossed on the dungheap of alleged heresy.
Abbe Pierre's honesty is a sign of sanctity. You won't find that opennesss about his true thoughts and his personal life in any of the conservatives adored by neocaths. Their creed is DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. And when the trtuh about them slips out, what a shock -- they turn out to be protectors of child abusers for example.
The popularity contest in question is a national poll taken annually. Mother Teresa also figures prominently in it -- another false prophet?
If you neocaths succeed, all the most lively figures in the RCC will be tossed on the dungheap of alleged heresy.
Abbe Pierre's honesty is a sign of sanctity. You won't find that opennesss about his true thoughts and his personal life in any of the conservatives adored by neocaths. Their creed is DON'T ASK DON'T TELL. And when the trtuh about them slips out, what a shock -- they turn out to be protectors of child abusers for example.
France's most famous priest says he broke vow of celibacy
SUSAN BELL
IN PARIS
ONE of France's most popular personalities, a 93-year-old Roman Catholic priest who champions the cause of the homeless and poor, has scandalised the Church with a book in which he admits to having broken his vows of celibacy.
Abbe Pierre, who has topped French popularity lists for so long that he withdrew his name last year to make way for others, also says in his book Mon Dieu ... Pourquoi? (My God ... Why?), which was published yesterday, that he could imagine that Jesus Christ had been married to Mary Magdalene.
Abbe Pierre, a former Capuchin monk became a humanitarian icon in France when he founded Emmaus, an international non-profit organisation dedicated to providing food, refuge and hope for the homeless.
His frank explanations of his own sexual experiences are expected to reopen the debate on the question of celibacy and sexuality within the Catholic Church.
"I made the decision very young to dedicate my life to God and to others and thus I made the vow of chastity ... That does not remove in the slightest the force of desire and it has happened to me that I have surrendered to it in a temporary fashion. But I have never had a regular liaison, because I never allowed sexual desire to take root," Abbe Pierre writes.
His confession made headline news across France after extracts from the book were published by Le Point magazine yesterday.
However, Monsignor Hervé Giraud, Bishop of Lyon, asked: "Why is society only interested in the lines of the book where Abbe Pierre speaks of his private life when he evokes so many other things? Is it so guilty about its sexuality that it is reassured to see a hero sin?"
The priest also argues in favour of the marriage of Catholic priests and the ordination of women, and says that he is not shocked by the idea that Christ may have had a sexual relationship with the prostitute Mary Magdalene.
"I am convinced that wanting to fully embrace human nature He lived the experience of sexual desire which every man knows. Did He want to satisfy this desire? If so, He must have lived it in the context of shared love and Mary Magdalene seems to have been the closest woman to Him after His mother," Abbe Pierre writes.
Abbe Pierre, who has already confessed to having experienced a long but platonic love affair with a choir singer, also says in his book that he knows several priests who are living with women.
"They continue to be good priests," he wrote, calling for the Church to authorise the marriage of priests and to ordain married men.
Abbe Pierre also questions papal opposition to the ordination of women. "I have never understood why Jean-Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the Church would never ordain women," he writes. "It is hard to see why, when ideas have evolved so profoundly on the question [of women's equality with men], the Church must remain faithful
"It is hard to see why, when ideas have evolved so profoundly on the question [of women's equality with men], the Church must remain faithful to this prejudice."
The priest also writes of his sympathy for homosexual couples who wish to see their union consecrated by the Church.
Born Henri Groues in Lyon, Abbe Pierre was ordained in 1938.
His pseudonym dates from the Second World War when he operated under several names as a member of the French resistance.
The book's publication made national headlines in France and elicited a mixed reaction from Catholic commentators.
"It's unfortunate the media stress two or three issues in a book that is a profound testimony of faith," said Marie-Caroline de Marliave, spokeswoman for the French Bishops' Conference. "His faith is very real but this does it a disservice."
"Personalities like Abbe Pierre and Mother Teresa give the Church credibility," argued Rev. Alain de la Morandais, a frequent commentator on French television.
"So what if he had some weaknesses of the flesh? Maybe that's partly what made him so compassionate."
A MARRIED JESUS?
Abbe Pierre said he knew good priests who lived with common-law wives. "I'm convinced the Church needs married priests and celibate priests who can devote themselves totally to prayer and to others."
Neither Pope John Paul nor Pope Benedict "has ever put forward a single decisive theological argument showing that ordaining women priests would be against the faith," he wrote.
This doctrine was "more sociological than theological," he said. "It is very probable, and I'd say desirable, that the Church evolves on this point in coming decades."
He approved of civil unions for homosexuals but balked at supporting adoption rights for gays. He said Pope Benedict would surprise Catholics by eventually allowing older married men to become priests and remarried divorced people to receive communion.
That Jesus may have married Mary Magdalene -- an ancient theory revived by the popular novel "The Da Vinci Code" -- was possible but unproven, he said. "I don't think it makes any difference for the fundamentals of the Christian faith."
Abbe Pierre -- "abbe" is a traditional title for priests -- worked with the French Resistance in World War Two and began campaigning for the homeless in 1949. His Emmaus chain of hostels for them is spread across 38 countries.
Known for his trademark whispy white beard, he has topped popularity polls regularly since 1989, occasionally slipping into second place behind football superstar Zinedine Zidane -- the uncontested leader now that he has withdrawn his name.
At 93, Abbe Pierre now arrives in a wheelchair when tragedy strikes, such as a deadly fire that killed 17 immigrants in a Paris tenement in August.
It's not surprising that the heretic Abbe Pierre would also be guilty of sexual sin -- as the old saying goes, heresy begins below the belt.
While it's good to hear the Bishop of Lyons describe Abbe Pierre's past sexual misconduct as sin, it would be better to hear him speak out against Abbe Pierre's filthy heresies. That what bishops are supposed to do, after all -- teach the truth, correct error. Abbe Pierre's sexual sins are, hopefully, in the past -- but his heresies are present and ongoing.
As for the question of whether or not Blessed Teresa of Calcutta's popularity means she's a false prophet, Jesus says it certainly COULD be an indication that she's a false prophet. We don't have to worry about her, though -- she held and still holds to the true faith, while Abbe Pierre has denied the faith.
Odd that Abbe Pierre shows up on a thread that has nothing to do with him, or even sex.
But just to add to the picture of AP: in addition to being a plucky advocate of the poor and gadfly about celibacy and women's ordination, he was condemned by Cdl. Lustiger for his endorsement of a Holocaust denial book and his repeated anti-Semitic comments.
A man of many facets.
A morally lapsed priest says and does some fashionably nice things, and we're supposed to conclude what??? That moral lapses are the cause of saying and doing fashionably nice things???
Fr. O'Leary, enough of this. This isn't the place to come pimping and hawking your cartfull of snake oil and sins. We're all filled up here. Our own sins are quite enough to keep us busy with the business of amendment of life and repentance without taking on any of the corruptions you're in the business of selling.
If you have a point to make, please keep it brief and move on. Concise comments are welcome. Egregious dumping is not.
Re poor Fr. Pierre:
There's no fool like an old fool.
Hey, isn't Jerry Lewis a big hit in France too? What does that tell ya!
If Abbe Pierre says his sexual activities were sinful, that is fine with me. But his critique of celibacy and respect for gay unions is not sinful, begging your pardon.
I had not heard of the Lustiger- Abbe Pierre spat. I found this on the net:
Cardinal Lustiger spoke out against Abbe Pierre's Holocaust denial. He called Abbe Pierre's comparison of the acts of ancient Israelites to those of Nazis during the Holocaust "...naive and fundamentalist," stating, "It can legitimate all kinds of fanaticism. It ignores exegesis, both spiritual and historical, of both Jewish and Christian traditions."
Lustiger evidently thinks that spiritual or allegorical exegesis of such texts as Numbers 31 is enough to wipe away their genocidal character; this is another form of denial.
Abbe Pierre is a critic of Israel, but does not appear to be anti-semitic. However the book by Garaudy, which he endorsed without reading in its entirety, is accused of holocaust revisionism. Abbe Pierre has subsequently distanced himself from this, and even in his original endorsement it is clear that he is not supporting revisionism: "We are hearing talk of the Pope's intention in the year 2000 (will it be the same Pope?) of confessing the historical trespasses which accompanied the zeal of the Christian missionaries. May henot underestimate the role played in anti-Semitism by the words "deicidal people," something which is senseless because it was for everyone, for all humans that Jesus offered himself up in ransom!...
fidelity of my affectionate esteem and of my respect for the enormous work of your new book. To confuse it with what is called "revisionism" is an imposture and a veritable slander by the ignorant."
I see il Papa is bringing out his first encyclical on Dec. 8. The topic is the double commandment of love. Any guesses as to the title? I suggest, Altum caritatis mysterium. Other possibilities: Salvatoris Mandatum, or Dilectionem Dei. Or perhaps he will give a policy directive by having something about unity in the title -- Unitatis Vinculum?
"A great deal of good came out of Vatican II..."
A GREAT deal??? Like what???
To name a few:
The unfinished work of Vatican I was finally continued. (It's still unfinished, but it's much closer to being completed than it was before.)
The lectionary was greatly improved, enabling Catholics to rediscover the Old Testament.
The role of the laity was explained, defined, and emphasized.
The vile heresy that all Jews are Christ-killers and the special servants of the Devil simply by virtue of being Jews was condemned and proscribed.
So, all this mess for the end of the Traditional Breviary, which already had more than enough readings of the Old Testament for those so inclined, and a Brave New Mass Lectionary... so innefective that one is less likely today than 40 years ago to find a Catholic who understands the great Old-Testament expressions of our language, from "Balaam's Ass" to "the writing on the wall"...
As for the condemnation of any "heresy" (I do not understand how the erroneous understanding you mention on the People of the Old Covenant, while harmful, is a heresy), you must have read the wrong documents, since no "heresy" is mentioned and nothing is proscribed in the tens of thousands of words of this most prolix council. Oh, my mistake: the 2000-year-old Hour of Prime was abolished...
ineffective
As for the laity, its supposed "improvement" was established with a wrong emphasis: the end of the respect for the Hierarchical Priesthood and its uniqueness and indispensability.
What has actually happened is that groups of laymen (such as pastoral associates, members of parish councils, etc) have become so powerful that many parishes and whole dioceses are run by these groups of busybodies, while the majority of us, who have to work and have no time for intra-Church disputes, as well as dedicated traditional Priests, who want to improve the situation of devastated communities, are held hostage by this "improved" laity... The laity does not need "power" and "improvement": it needs the Mass, Sacraments, and Eternal Life.
"So, all this mess for the end of the Traditional Breviary, which already had more than enough readings of the Old Testament for those so inclined, and a Brave New Mass Lectionary..."
It's far better for the Church to read the Old Testament publicly, not hide most of it in a breviary that only priests and religious might read. For all the strengths and glorious of the pre-Vatican II Mass, it's lack of Old Testament readings was a grave weakness that unintentionally helped promoted the biblical illiteracy that Catholics have suffered from for so very, very, very, long.
"so ineffective that one is less likely today than 40 years ago to find a Catholic who understands the great Old-Testament expressions of our language, from 'Balaam's Ass' to 'the writing on the wall'..."
That can't be blamed on the public reading of the Old Testament -- there are a whole host of other problems, many of them preconciliar, that helped create that defect.
"I do not understand how the erroneous understanding you mention on the People of the Old Covenant, while harmful, is a heresy."
It's a doctrinal error, so it's a heresy. Not in a formal sense, in the technical sense that "heresy" has come to be used in Catholicism, but in the sense of a false opinion that the Church has ruled out, I say "heresy" is the right word. Yes, technically Vatican II did not formally anathematise any heresy, but it did teach that the Christ-killer error is a false doctrine. In today's church, that's about as close to an anathema sit as we're going to get.
As for the misapplication and distortion of Vatican II's doctrine on the role of the laity that you deplore, you can't blame Vatican II for the sins of those who don't know and don't care what Vatican II said.
Your position on the New Lectionary is a common one, though I refuse to believe that a "selection" of Old Testament readings made up from scratch by a bureaucratic commission in the 1960s and divided in pseudo-scientific A-B-C years is better than the 1500-year-old Eastern and Western practice of a yearly Lectionary of mostly New Testament readings reminding Catholics year after year of the essentials of the Faith. More is not necessarily better...
Eastern lectionaries have included far more Old Testament readings than Western lectionaries. Anyway, the new lectionary does an excellent job of teaching Catholics year after year of the essentials of the Faith. In this case, more is definitely better -- it's always better to hear and learn more of God's Word than less. The Church anciently used to read far more of the Bible in the Mass or Divine Liturgy than it did in the lectionary that was in use in the West during the centuries before Vatican II. This is one reform from Vatican II that was a real improvement. Unfortunately it has been hindered in effectiveness by the horrible mistranslation of the Bible we English-speakers have to endure, and by the spread of the false doctrine (favored by men like Fr. Raymond Brown) that the Bible's inerrancy only extends to matters of faith and morals but not to historical statements. It's pretty hard to get somebody interested in the teachings of a book that is supposedly riddled with error.
"It's pretty hard to get somebody interested in the teachings of a book that is supposedly riddled with error."
You're certainly right about that!
So there we have it: even if you are right (that the readings for Holy Mass are better in the new mass than in the 1500 preceding years in the Latin Church), it seems quite a meager result for such a huge Council... Considering the net result of what followed it, it was, to say the least, quite a failure...
Maybe a failure in the short term -- but then the Church walks the road to Calvary in order to reach the gloriously empty Holy Sepulchre. In the long term, I believe the seeds planted at Vatican II will bear some very good fruit, even if in the short term we've been suffering some pretty rotten harvests.
A couple points on this general topic:
1. Not everything in the bible is “on point”. There is more than one occasion when I have wondered, particularly with the OT readings, what exactly was the point of including this? The goal of the expansion of scriptural readings is a worthy one, even if the by-product, making the Mass more like a protestant prayer service, was not. But the problem, both with the readings and with the prayers, is exactly as New Catholic says, the fact that they were chosen, not for their salience, but for their inoffensiveness.
2. The prayers are dealt with in a little book by Fr Anthony Cekada, “The Problems with the Prayers of the New Mass”. This quote from the cover sums up the contents nicely: “almost all typically Catholic concepts have been eliminated from the prayers of the Modern Mass, in favor of a very bland form of expression that will offend no one. Gone from these prayers are such Catholic concepts as ‘sacrifice’, ‘reparation’, ‘hell’, ‘the gravity of sin’, ‘snares of wickedness’, ‘the burden of evil’, ‘adversities’, ‘enemies’, ‘tribulations’, ‘evils’, ‘tribulations’, ‘afflictions’, ‘infirmities of soul’, ‘obstinacy of heart’, ‘concupiscence of the flesh and of the eyes’, ‘unworthiness’, ‘temptations’, ‘wicked thoughts’, ‘grave offenses’, ‘loss of heaven’, ‘everlasting death’, ‘eternal punishment’, ‘hidden fruits’, ‘guilt’, ‘eternal rest’, ‘true faith’, ‘merits’, ‘intercession’, ‘heavenly fellowship’, ‘fires of hell’, etc”.
These days, terms like “sinful” and “decadent” are used to peddle chocolate.
I agree that many of the new lections seem to have been chosen for their inoffensiveness. I have noticed some occasions when a lection has been truncated, and I don't find it a coincidence that the omitted text contains some rather difficult sayings. But I think there are quite a lot of difficult sayings in the new lections too.
Someday soon the readings from Maccabees will tell of a zealous Jew who slays someone he sees committing an act of false worship. I think all such murderous texts should be banned from public reading of Scripture. A fortiori such genocidal texts as Numbers 31 or I Samuel 15 should be quarantined.
We loathe murderous Islamic fundamentalism yet we pour into the ears of our children biblical texts that advocate murder.
Nor do those texts fail or their effect. The history of our religion is filled with murder -- of Jews, gays, "heretics" etc. etc.
We need to be adults and to face the reality of our history without flinching. Otherwise we condemn our children to repeat our own bloody mistakes.
"Someday soon the readings from Maccabees will tell of a zealous Jew who slays someone he sees committing an act of false worship."
That would be today's reading from the Old Testament. Mattathias the priest, in obedience to the commandment that God gave Israel, executed an apostate Jew for worshipping false gods.
"I think all such murderous texts should be banned from public reading of Scripture."
God does not authorise anyone to commit murder. Your characterisation of Mattathias' deed as murder is irreconcilable with the Catholic faith.
The irony here is that if Mattathias had not obeyed God's commandment, and if his sons had not defended Israel from the Gentiles' attempts to destroy the true religion, there would not even be a Catholic faith today that Fr. O'Leary could deny.
"A fortiori such genocidal texts as Numbers 31 or I Samuel 15 should be quarantined."
Why not just rip them out of your Bible? If they really are genocidal, how can they justifiably be retained in the canon of Scripture?
We Catholics believe those texts are divinely inspired, but if you disagree you should just write your own Bible.
"If they really are genocidal, how can they justifiably be retained in the canon of Scripture?"
That is a very important problem.
One solution is just to allegorize the embarrassing text away. Similarly anti-gay texts can be allegorized away. But fundamentalists want to keep the latter so they defend the former too, on the following grounds:
Genocide is wrong for humans, but is all right if God commands it (even Aquinas argues in something like this style).
Corrupt humans cannot judge the morals of Scripture.
God has the right to kill any humans, as in the Deluge. And God has the right to appoint humans as agents of his vengeance.
Even the babies whose heads the Psalmist wants dashed against the stones were not innocent, how much less the Midianite women.
If you are happy with that kind of God, fine, you have no problem with these texts.
Ironically, as you justify murderous texts from Scripture, your soldiers are putting them into practice in the rape, torture, and murder of Iraqis...
"If you are happy with that kind of God, fine, you have no problem with these texts."
That kind of God is the only one that exists, so if we wish to enjoy eternal blessedness, we'd better be careful about what we say about the Holy Scripture that He inspired.
"Ironically, as you justify murderous texts from Scripture, your soldiers are putting them into practice in the rape, torture, and murder of Iraqis..."
That's outrageous, even if your hysterical accusations were true, and even if they were "my soldiers." There's nothing in Holy Scripture about God commanding His servants to rape. In ancient times He did command the execution of various persons, families, and tribes who were guilty of grievous sins, but that was under the ministration of death. The letter kills, the spirit gives life. God no longer orders holy wars of extermination of idolaters -- those works of His that He performed through His chosen people were a shadow of the coming spiritual realities in Christ Jesus. We mortify the sin that is in our own bodies and souls -- we don't mortify the sinners. We root out our offending eyes -- we don't root out the offenders.
For rape, see Numbers 31, where the virgins (war booty) are given to the priests, as God commands Moses.
As for the women and children he explicitly commands to be slaughtered, of what "grievous sins" were they guilty?
You say we no longer kill heretics etc., but we did up to the 18th century and we reserved the right to do so up to the 19th or possibly 20th.
Your boys in Iraq just shot three babies who were on a way to a funeral with their family.
"For rape, see Numbers 31, where the virgins (war booty) are given to the priests, as God commands Moses."
Where does it say the Israelites were commanded, let alone given permission, to rape these virgins? From the custom of the time, we would expect them to have become maidservants to the Israelites, and some may have become proselytes and married Israelite men -- and no doubt, knowing original sin, some Israelite men committed the sin of reducing them to concubinage, and some of them may have been raped. But the text says nothing about the virgins being raped. All it says is that only the virgins were spared -- everyone else was killed, as punishment for the sexual immorality and idolatry to which they had led Israel at Balaam's behest. It doesn't say what became of the women. You believe they were raped, but you're only speculating.
"As for the women and children he explicitly commands to be slaughtered, of what 'grievous sins' were they guilty?"
The women who were killed had been sexually inducted into the pagan religion of Midian. The boys were killed because God had ordered that the people of Midian be decimated for their seduction and attempted destruction of Israel -- the clan's continuance was through the male line, not the female line, so elimination of adult males as well as boys would put the continued existence of the Midianites in jeopardy. As I said before, God no longer mandates that His chosen people execute His just judgments in that manner -- God did those things to create allegories and shadows of the things that He promised. Now that the reality is here, we no longer walk in shadows.
"You say we no longer kill heretics etc., but we did up to the 18th century and we reserved the right to do so up to the 19th or possibly 20th."
But we've never reserved any right to just take an army through a country and indiscriminately massacre every known or suspected heretic. I know of one time that happened -- during the Albigensian Crusade -- and those occasions were abuses. Heretics are to be put on trial by the Church and punished when found guilty, not slaughtered wholesale.
"Your boys in Iraq just shot three babies who were on a way to a funeral with their family."
Please retract your ridiculous accusation. My boys are ages 6 and 2, and they've never left the United States, so I'm absolutely sure they've never murdered any babies in Iraq.
Numbers 31.15-18: "Moses said to them, 'Have you let all the women live? Behold these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregations of the Lord. Now, therefore, KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES, AND KILL EVERY WOMAN WHO HAS KNOWN MAN BY LYING WITH HIM. BUT ALL THE YOUNG GIRLS WHO HAVE NOT KNOWN MAN BY LYING WITH HIM, KEEP ALIVE FOR YOURSELVES.'"
31.32-4 "Now the booty remaining of the spoil that teh men of war took was: 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 asses and 32,000 persons in all, women who had not known man by lying with him."
Half, including 16,000 virgins, is given to the warriors, the other half to the congregation; one of every fifty of the latter is the Levites' portion, including 3,200 virgins.
I guess the virgins were not raped in the crudest sense -- they were official war booty at the free use of their new lords and masters. It is perhaps only in today's law that such situations are called rape.
The story is probably unhistorical, but it nonetheless sheds an unsavory light on the human and religious ideals of our forefathers in faith -- or just say that they belonged to a primitive level of religious development. What is horrible is when this stuff is maintained as valid for today, when it become rancid fundamentalism, a license for genocide and other horrible crimes, such as the suppression of freedom of conscience by execution (as you still urge, in unlovely opposition to Vatican II).
The specification that the young girls who are spared must be virgins is not because the warriors wanted to found a convent. Female celibacy has no place in the Israelite mindset. It is so that they would provide fresh and juicy items for the delectation of their ravishers!
"I guess the virgins were not raped in the crudest sense -- they were official war booty at the free use of their new lords and masters."
No, the Law of Moses regulated how they could be used or employed. Rape was not permitted.
"It is perhaps only in today's law that such situations are called rape."
And of course today's law doesn't necessarily tell us anything about what is or isn't moral, just as the customs of Moses' day don't necessarily tell us what is or isn't moral.
"The story is probably unhistorical, but it nonetheless sheds an unsavory light on the human and religious ideals of our forefathers in faith -- or just say that they belonged to a primitive level of religious development."
Obviously those events belonged to a primitive level of religious development, but there's no reason to doubt that God commanded Israel to punish the Midianites as the historical record in Num. 31 recounts.
"What is horrible is when this stuff is maintained as valid for today, when it becomes rancid fundamentalism, a license for genocide and other horrible crimes, such as the suppression of freedom of conscience by execution (as you still urge, in unlovely opposition to Vatican II)."
You really, really need to stop misrepresenting the beliefs of your opponents. I have never said that Num. 31 supports the Church's doctrine that Catholic states have a right in certain circumstances to execute heretics. I have only noticed what the Church teaches, and that Vatican II, which accommodated the Church's doctrine to the present unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves, with states refusing to submit to the teachings of Jesus Chrfist, allowed an "escape clause" that provides wiggle room for her doctrine regarding the proscription of false religion and the execution of heretics. But as I have said before, I do not believe heretics should be executed, and I do not believe that the freedom of conscience should be suppressed. No one can be coerced into being a Catholic -- not even you.
Sorry, that last comment was from me.
"It is so that they would provide fresh and juicy items for the delectation of their ravishers!"
Your words lower the tone of this discussion to the unnecessarily and inappropriately salacious. Anyway, like I said, the text does not say the Midianite girls were raped or ravished. It's very interesting that you insist that was what happened to them, even in the absence of evidence. Are you really so eager to find fault with Holy Writ that you have to invent stories of sin committed by our fathers? Aren't the stories of sin that are actually in the Bible enough?
Numbers 31 is certainly not presented as a story of sin or even as the mere customs of the time. It is presented as a sacred action commanded by God. In the same way the burning of heretics was a sacred action, almost a sacrament -- an act of faith (auto da fe).
I mentioned juicy virgins to context your idea that the girls taken as war booty would be treated with respect for their virginity as if the warriors were setting up a convent! The customs of war were brutal, and just as we regard the sexual abuse of children as a form of rape, so we NOW regard such customs as a form of rape even if the Bible does not.
Vatican II respects the freedom of religious consciences and disowns the execution of heretics, which you cannot bring yourself to do.
Rigidity like yours leads to tragedy -- see George Bush for an example of the fate you are courting. Take warning, friend.
"Numbers 31 is certainly not presented as a story of sin or even as the mere customs of the time. It is presented as a sacred action commanded by God."
Of course -- and it obviously was a sacred action commanded by God.
"In the same way the burning of heretics was a sacred action, almost a sacrament -- an act of faith (auto da fe)."
Sacred action, no doubt, but "almost a sacrament" is just your usual hyperbole.
"I mentioned juicy virgins to context your idea that the girls taken as war booty would be treated with respect for their virginity as if the warriors were setting up a convent!"
"My idea"? Please re-read what I wrote: "Where does it say the Israelites were commanded, let alone given permission, to rape these virgins? From the custom of the time, we would expect them to have become maidservants to the Israelites, and some may have become proselytes and married Israelite men -- and no doubt, knowing original sin, some Israelite men committed the sin of reducing them to concubinage, and some of them may have been raped."
"Vatican II respects the freedom of religious consciences and disowns the execution of heretics, which you cannot bring yourself to do."
What part of "I do not believe heretics should be executed, and I do not believe that the freedom of conscience should be suppressed" don't you understand?
"Rigidity like yours leads to tragedy -- see George Bush for an example of the fate you are courting. Take warning, friend."
So you're saying that if I continue down the road of orthodox Catholicism, I might end up the President of the United States of America? I hope you're wrong -- that would be a fate worse than eternal damnation, especially for a Jacobite like me.
Commenting by HaloScan
